Depending on where you get your news, the incident in Samarra was either a brilliant display of US firepower, or a massacre. Or maybe both.
Here's the Rational Enquirer's take on events:
US convoys, delivering Iraqi currency to banks, were ambushed by guerrillas, but by a smaller number than the military claims. US forces responded with wild, overwhelming firepower (part of their new strategy; see Operation Iron Hammer, Ivy Cyclone II), killing a handful of insurgents but a larger number of civilians, and causing a great deal of collateral damage.
When the dust settled, the guerrillas (most of whom escaped) were planning the next ambush, mosques and kindergartens were repaired, civilians were burying their dead relatives, and hundreds of hearts and minds in Samarra were lost forever, hell bent on revenge.
And on it goes.
UPDATE: David Hackworth received an email from a commander who saw the action in Samarra, and his account is in line with the version described above, right down to the inevitable loss of hearts and minds. Highly recommended reading.
Wounded boy, in Saddam Fedayeen uniform
Grieving mother with a picture of her dead son
Grieving boy beside the grave of his 12-year-old brother
Injured 9-year-old boy
Bullet-ridden dad with his kids
Man alongside his badly injured, comatose brother
Welcome back, Dack. Hope youhad a good Thanksgiving.
Read a good story about Samara the other day, before the battle. The article points out that the town hates Saddam -- 3 assassination attempts against him were carried out there, and Saddam discriminated against the town when it came to funding.
It seems to me that by losing this town, we've lost the Sunni area.
Posted by: Vin Carreo on December 2, 2003 05:59 AMAnd today's fatality occurs where?
Samarra
Good to have you around here, Vin. Hey, do you have a source for that neocon "noble failure" comment you posted in another thread?
elvis56: from the Hackworth email: "We drive around in convoys, blast the hell out of the area, break down doors and search buildings; but the guerillas continue to attacks us."
Posted by: dack on December 2, 2003 07:24 PMDack, the e-mail link (which I'd love to read) has gone belly-up -- this one should work.
Posted by: dtetto on December 2, 2003 10:43 PMI dont understand what's happening in this country... why is no one pissed off about the fact that Iraq is being lost?
I didn't support the war, but once it was over I tried to have hope that the 'right thing' could be done. But intentions are so important in life, and everything was done with bad inentions and will continue to be done that way.
America is an ignorant, racist country (like most (all?) countries) and therefor is doomed to fail in Iraq.
Posted by: ted on December 3, 2003 01:06 PMWhat is telling is what looks like the IDF-like practise of collective punishment by bulldozing or blowing up buildings where suspected resistance were/are located. All it accomplishes is to further enrage an already angry civilian population. Two steps forward -- ten steps back.
Posted by: Mitch on December 4, 2003 07:21 PMDack, sorry, it's from the Financial Times and it's only available to subscribers now. Here's the original URL and the 1st graph of the story, which I saved:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565882250&p=1012571727172
A"noble failure". That is how a conservative intellectual and Middle East specialist close to President George W. Bush now describes the situation in Iraq. A few months ago, this man was one of the most ardent and articulate advocates of US military intervention to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. But, as one member of the Iraqi Governing Council pointed out recently, it is no longer clear whether the US will ever recover from the catastrophic two weeks of improvisation and brutality that followed the "conquest" of Baghdad.